Mirja Määttä & Sanna Aaltonen 7/2012

Categorized and complex youth participation

Abstract

Issues of youth participation and involvement in society are key interests for many youth researchers today. Since youth participation rights and responsibilities are also essential objectives in public policies, sensitizing for complexities of youth engagement is vital. In our theoretic-methodological paper we develop a model for analyzing varieties of youth participation. The model differentiates institutionally framed and governed participation forms from ungoverned, spontaneous youth activities, and imposed engagement from freely chosen participation. Our approach derives from the interplay between the social political youth studies and youth sub-cultural studies (MacDonald et al 2001) on the one hand; and by the neo-Foucauldian analysis of governance (Dean 1999; Miller & Rose 2008), on the other.

In our paper, special attention is paid to the young people who are considered to need intensified measures of support in their transition to adulthood. For them participation initiatives often mean supportive and controlling policy measures in order to feed their active citizenship. While the young people categorized as ‘passive’ or ‘at-risks’ are expected to participate in reflecting upon their personal life and future plans, other young people are invited to have an influence in societal matters. As youth participation initiatives are differentiated according to the categorizations of young people, it is important to critically analyze the use of participative technologies. We argue that one-sided understanding of youth participation as empowering opportunity masks the inequalities among young people.

Introduction

Youth participation is a key interest for many youth researchers today. In general terms it

is considered to be an essential element of young people’s wellbeing (e.g. Wyn 2009) and

a prerequisite for active citizenry. Issues of youth inclusion in society and involvement in

politics and policy making are all addressed in the studies. In the policy arenas youth

participation initiatives have reached their peak in many countries. The strong demand for

1

the states, communities and services to engage young people is stated in the national and

international formulas, the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child being the most

cited. (See e.g. Moran-Ellis 2010; Wall 2012.) By stressing youth participation and citizen

education those in power – politicians, policy makers and experts – hope to answer to the

anxieties created by youth exclusion risks manifested especially in the high rates of

dropping-out from education and labour market. They also want to combat against the

democratic and civics deficits, that is to say, low conventional political and social

engagement among the young. Furthermore, youth engagement is seen as a vehicle for

user friendly, responsive and better targeted services and well functioning facilities for the

target group.

“The active citizenship’ is yearned in contemporary youth policies (Harris et al. 2010;

Milbourne 2009; Brooks 2009). Instead of emphasizing the legal membership of the nation

as a given status, the term underlines the normative ideal of “citizenship as a quality,

capacity or set of skills and understanding instilled in young people” (Hall & Coffey 2007,

283). The term implies that the other side of the coin, passive citizenship, is not wanted

(Hall et al. 1998). This is in line with activating social and labour market policies which

underline the self-responsibility of individuals and seek to balance rights and

responsibilities of the citizens (Walther 2005; Pohl & Walther 2007). Yet there are limits in

desirable activity. As Janet Newman (2007) has pointed out policies in search of the active

and activated citizens do not necessarily value activists, people who aim to challenge the

existing order.

This article questions the conventional and limited interpretation of ‘youth participation’ as

a right and opportunity to which young people should be educated. Instead we offer a

wider view on participation pointing out to the complexities of youth engagement. Even

there is a need to develop further the possibilities of youngsters to be part of and involve in

their communities, and have an influence in everyday, policy and political domains; we

argue that one-sided understanding of youth participation as empowering opportunity is

misleading. It masks the inequalities among young people: namely, that their participation

possibilities are differentiated according to their categorization. Participation initiatives for

the young people categorized as ‘passive’ or ‘at-risks’ compound of supportive and

controlling measures in order to feed their active citizenship.

2

The aim of the article is to make visible and enable critical analysis of the inequalities

inherent in the governing practices using participatory approaches and discourses. We

develop a model for analyzing varieties of youth participation forms. The model can be

used for explaining the obstacles and contradictions in the implementation of participation

initiatives. Our approach is inspired on the one hand by the interaction of social political

youth studies and youth sub-cultural studies (MacDonald, R. et al 2001; Hoikkala &

Suurpää 2005), and on the other hand by the neo-Foucauldian analysis of governance

(Dean 1999; Rose 1999a; Miller & Rose 2008; Sulkunen 2009). The model differentiates

institutionally framed and governed participation forms from ungoverned, spontaneous

youth activities, and imposed engagement from freely chosen participation. Participation is

examined particularly among the young people who are considered to need intensified

measures of support in their transition to adulthood. The model is further exemplified by

study on activities offering targeted support for marginal young people, who have

difficulties to get a diploma from the comprehensive school.

Model for analyzing youth participation

In order to develop understanding on varieties of youth participation we apply the following

bi-dimensional model to analyze it. This 2x2 typology employs two continuums in which

participation is examined. The horizontal continuum refers to the institutional – non-

institutional contexts of participation: on the one hand youth participation is officially

governed, conventional and sanctioned/rewarded and on the other official governing is

weak or does not exist. The vertical continuum in turn refers to the degree of choice: in the

position of high degree of choice young people have relatively more freedom to choose

their contexts, manners and intensity of participation, while in the other end of the

continuum their options of choices are more scarce and structured by other driving forces

than their own discretion. The latter kind of imposed participation is often ignored in youth

participation discussions and studies, as participation as such is interpreted exclusively

positively.

3

Picture 1. Model for analyzing youth participation

The bi-dimensional model compounds of four ideal types of participation, the first being

formal participation of young people. It consists of a number of different participation

forms to which young people are hoped and guided to be engaged: from formal education

to extracurricular activities and from political involvement to voluntary work. Conventional

political activities such as voting, being a member in the political parties and trade unions

and standing in the elections – participation that is partly restricted for under-aged – are

part of it as well as the membership in ‘the pre-political representative bodies’ such as

youth and civic councils, school councils, and different associations. These decision

making forums have recently given more room and official, even legal, status in many

countries (see for example Whitty & Wisby 2007). Since it is not possible to elaborate on

all these conventional ways to participate we explore more closely these pre-political

representative bodies.

4

They usually have more or less formal decision-making processes, regulation for the

meetings and adult guidance. They are also ‘promotional’ in their nature, as young people

get experience in democratic practices and learn to discuss, oppose, defend and influence

in the issues at hand (Tisdall & Davis 2004). These forums can be seen as ‘precursors to

civic engagement in adulthood’ (Flanagan 2009, 297), as stepping stones for recruitment

trajectories and further authority in society or opportunistically speaking, something to put

into CV’s (Brooks 2007).

Nevertheless, earlier studies on youth participation have identified many challenges and

limits in implementing extra-curricular youth participation in practice. There is a lack of

representativeness and inclusiveness in many youth forums or councils, because young

people identified as active and achieving in conventional manner are over-represented in

them (Tisdall & Davis 2004; Flanagan 2009; Vromen & Collin 2010). According to Nairn et

al. (2006) achiever-type of youngsters – future leaders – are recruited to represent youth

voices in developing communal and political issues and given opportunities for learning

and influencing. Those in the cultural and social margins are excluded from the

representational forums, partly because they are considered to lack the “capacities

required to be able to effectively participate in democratic decision-making settings”

(Macpherson 2008, 363–364). Instead the ‘trouble-makers’ are encouraged into

rehabilitative activities and offered supervising. Respectively, ‘ordinary’ young people,

those in the middle, are also claimed to be brushed aside from the participation initiatives.

(Nairn et al. 2006; see also Harris 2010.)

Those who are included in the decision making bodies face challenges too: for being taken

seriously young people have to act in a similar way as adult members and adapt

themselves to the appropriate council practices. This complicates the idea of representing

young people as an interest group: representatives should use ‘the voice of the young

people’ and be similar as young people in general. This is practically impossible as young

people form a heterogeneous group and the selection of the representatives is not

representative in any way. (Wall 2011; Faulkner 2009.)

While youth participation procedures and possibilities are stressed in the public policies,

the practical outcome of their participation – in other words the ideas and approaches of

young people – may be neglected; and they have only minor or no implications in the

5

actual adult-driven agenda setting and decision making. (Tisdall & Davis 2004; Wyness

2009; Vromen & Collin 2010.) In practice, young people’s participation can be decorative

and superficial rather than something that gives genuine authority to them (see

comparison of the ladder of participation -models in Barber 2009). Alternatively, they are

listened to only if they are willing to legitimate the status quo and comply with the

governing bodies – such as government or municipal council (Whitty & Wisby 2007).

The second type, youth activities and informal participation refers to optional

participation without strict institutional framing and official governing. Unconventional,

everyday political participation such as recycling, donating money, signing petitions,

boycotting or marketing a brand, making statements online or otherwise, protesting and

spontaneous artistic, media, or youth sub-cultural expressions are all part of this field. At

the end of the continuum are spectacular activism, political radicalism and civil

disobedience of young people. (Harris et al. 2010.)

Part of this optional participation tests or transcends the limits of legality, aiming at

challenging existing societal orders and borders. One example of this kind of participation

is graffiti, based on city youth sub-cultural and stylistic innovations but carrying also

political meanings. It has been analyzed as community-building practice, which creates

shared visual space, challenges the commercialization of the public space and questions

the monopoly of planning authorities to design the urban environment. (Dickinson 2008;

Visconti et al. 2010.) Overtly political protests and movements of young people are further

examples of unconventional modes to participate and perform citizenship. According to

Juris and Pleyers (2009, 58) they represents “an alternative mode of (sub-)cultural practice

and an emerging form of citizenship among young people that prefigures wider social

changes related to political commitment, cultural expression, and collaborative practice”.

What is often typical for this kind of activism are network-based operational forms,

innovative use of information and communication technologies, criticism towards formal

political associations and global connectedness (ibid.; see for example Flanagan & Levine

2010; Laine 2012). Nevertheless, even though the new forms of engagement may be more

open and collaborative compared to conventional forms of participation poor and minority

youth may still remain underrepresented in them (c.f. Juris & Pleyers 2010, 62).

The third type is youth participation required in the services and for receiving social provisions. It is officially governed and institutionally framed, made binding by acts,

6

decrees, codes of conduct or procedures. It is a field where embraced ideas about the

youth participation rights turn to participation duties and mixture of care and control in the

services directed to young people. In many ways it concerns all the minors in a society as

they are not characterized as mature and self responsible subjects but seen as ‘citizens-in-

the-making’. They constitute “the most intensively governed sector of personal existence”

(Rose 1999b, 123). For example, in Finland the whole age group has an obligation to

accomplish their basic education. This is sanctioned by legislation and fulfilled by intense

support measures when necessary1. Targeted measures are offered for unemployed as

well. They have to register as job applicants, report minutely their activities and travels,

take part in training and accept a job addressed to them for getting full benefits and

services. All of this calls for young people’s own activity, agency and participation.

The participation duties with the adult guidance and control are activated and intensified

whenever a young person is considered to be at risks and in need of targeted support.

This form of demanded participation is often hidden in the youth participation discussions.

Yet, many authorities and professionals working with young people are familiar with the

regulations and controlling measures, because they are part and parcel of their work

challenges and in the need of constant justifications. Respectively the service providers

are obligated to offer certain support measures for the young people in a given time limit,

for example in the child welfare and employment services. This illustrates the idea of

reciprocal rights and responsibilities of the state and citizens even the position of the

service provider is more powerful in many respects than that of the individual service

recipient whose options are limited by the conditionality of the support. A threat of

withdrawal of support measures is a strong driving force for participation. Participation

duties may also be introduced as advisable rather than strictly obligated for the young. For

example unemployed young people who are making individual action plans in dialogue

with an administrator are tutored to show their flexible character as a service recipient and

thus, their profitability for ongoing investments (Born & Jensen 2010).

The fourth and last ideal type may first appear as an anomaly - low degree of choice in a

context free from official governing – but with this type we refer to consequences of poverty and disadvantage and to youth actions or inactions often seen as marks of non-

1 According to the Basic Education Act (628/1998) all children permanently residing in Finland are subject to compulsory education. The parent or other guardian of a child must ensure completion of compulsory education. 99,7 percent of the children complete their compulsory education and get the diploma. (Finnish National Board of Education.)

7

participation in or exclusion from society. Young people are agents and they make choices

but, paraphrasing Karl Marx, not in circumstances of their own choosing. Thus there may

be structural barriers to active citizenship. Options among which people have to choose in

order to participate and make a difference in their life can be restricted and all poor:

nonconformist, detrimental or illegal activities on the outskirts of society, away from official

supervision and support.

The widespread rioting and looting in several English towns in August 2011 can in part be

seen as an example of this kind of limited and marginal participation that has its roots in

social inequalities and deprivation, youth unemployment, racism and ethnic conflicts. From

the point of view of public officials such activities are interpreted simply as manifestations

of gang culture and criminal opportunism that form a threat to the security and wellbeing of

the society, violating the progression of bio-political project. However, these kinds of

activities reflect not only freedom of official governing but also deeper disconnection and

dissatisfaction with society, its values and the official institutions such as the police forces.

(See Smith 2011.)

This model, comprised of aforementioned four ideal types, can be further illustrated by

applying it to school context. While the comprehensive school requires school aged

children to participate to the education, in the minimum, by being physically present there

are different ways to participate to school work. Participation may involve engagement with

formal school decisions making (ideal type 1), student activism at school related to e.g.

environmental issues (type 2), participating to disciplinary measures of the official school

(type 3) or participating to counter-school cultural activities like playing truant (type 4) (e.g.

Thomson & Holdsworth 2003; Wyn 2009). Here it is essential to acknowledge that the two

latter types of participation are not simply a matter of free and deliberate choice from the

individuals’ point of view but can be inflected by student’s experiences of school culture as

aggressive or indifferent (Smyth et. al 2004; Aaltonen 2011).

We wish to concentrate here on the third type of participation that will be elaborated in the

next chapters by theorizing it further and illustrating it with a study example. This type

forms the most complex and contradictory area of youth participation where relations of

power and obedience, “common good’ and individual aspirations are contested and

negotiated. It also explains why normative policy expectations of youth participation are

often difficult to fulfill: these initiatives have strong educative and socializing goals based

8

on some implicit view of ideal citizen, but this ideal is not openly discussed. In the final

chapter we will return to discuss the model and its coverage.

Imposed participation for generating self-responsibility and -control

Focusing on ‘imposed participation’ that stands in the institutional-official quadrant of the

model aims at making visible the art of governing in contemporary societies that sets

individual agency and responsibility to the central position. In the liberal democracies, all

the young people are wanted to be equipped with the abilities of adult citizens: autonomy,

self-direction and self-control. Without these qualities the full participation and integration

into society are seen as incomplete. Nevertheless, it is often demanding for young people

to meet these requirements due to unequal resources and structural societal changes that

impede linear transitions – such as global economic imbalances, high youth

unemployment and insecure and precarious work opportunities.

Former links between the education and employment are loosened – even excellent

qualifications do not guarantee employment. At the policy level these difficulties are often

individualized, and employability- and self responsibility-promoting measures of support

are provided for young people. (Walther 2005; Pohl & Walther 2007.) Moreover, the

controlling and categorizing elements have been strengthened in youth services as well as

in political and media discussions (Satka et al. 2007). Governments trying to find answers

to the societal uncertainties are increasingly focusing on identifying risk-factors and risky

young individuals who are contrasted with the middle-class majority and whose lives are

deemed to be in need of intervention (see Foster & Spencer 2011; Jones et al 2004). In

the welfare states these interventions are justified by the statutory obligations of the

officials, individual rights for social protection or by economic calculations. The measures

of support are named for example as early intervention, secondary prevention or

rehabilitation.

The tendency to intensify control over young people’s life, and develop depressing

procedures for ‘at-risk-youth’ coexists with the public initiatives that embrace the ideas of

youth participation and partnership. This illustrates the confusions inherent in

contemporary youth policies. (Milbourne 2009.) For example, according to Muncie (2006;

9

788) the field of youth justice “appears as forever more hybrid: attempting to deliver a

complex and contradictory amalgam of the punitive, the responsibilizing, the remoralizing,

the inclusionary, the exclusionary and the protective”. Hence, it is understandable that

young people in different supporting and steering measures may find the expectations laid

on them perplexing and unfair.

In principle, the more precarious are the risks the more intensive are the interventions, and

the more young peoples’ capacity of agency is in doubt, the more intensively it will be

required of them. (Dean 1999, 168; Castel 2007, 50; Sulkunen 2009, 188; Sulkunen 2011).

For example, in child protection services, drug rehabilitation and medical care young

people may have to take part in the restrictive measures such as drug tests; frisks and

checking of possessions (see Kouvonen 2010). Here, young people are primarily the

objects of protection and control, but there is also room for their adaption, rejection or

collaboration. The reactions and actions of young people in the controlling measures make

them potentially participative subjects.

In practice different technologies of citizenship and agency are used to shepherd young

people to plan their future, control their lifestyles, and orient their behavior. (Dean 1999,

168; Miller & Rose 2008, 48 - 50.) For example school children and their parents may have

to sign up a contract where they promise to act according the rules of the school or rules of

the game are introduced to young people in youth projects, written down and sanctioned

whenever seen necessary. Whenever these kinds of responsibilitative measures are

exploited without negotiation possibilities and power signed over to subjects, the idea of

free participation or equal contracting is highly illusory. (Määttä & Kalliomaa-Puha 2006.)

Generating partnership with young people is seen as a successful technique for involving

them in their own governing. The practical applications of contracting are debatable,

sometimes also unsuitable for the target group2, only alleviating their subordinate position.

Here the relations of domination can be hidden under the discourses of voluntary

partnership (Sulkunen 2009, 180-181).

Blurring of voluntary participation and partnership to unequal power positions and illusory

negotiations is notable in the third type of participation in our model. When the discourses

of right-based participation possibilities and community engagement are incorporated into

more coercive and controlling fields of educational and labour policies – where the major

2 For example in the studied case of signing up a contract part of school children were illiterate (Määttä & Kalliomaa-Puha 2006).

10

inputs and maximum output expectations lie in our societies – clear ambivalences are

created. In that way the third type of participation makes an interesting yet often neglected

area in the participation studies.

Participation in an activity offering support

In order to further concretize institutionally framed participation where the degree of choice

is low we draw on data produced in My Own Career (hereafter MOC, Omaura in Finnish)

that was an alternative way of completing comprehensive school.3 With its emphasis on

working life, it was intended for young people who were in danger of not graduating with a

diploma. The young people interested in coming to MOC applied there with help from their

teachers or school welfare officials. The key elements of MOC were individual planning,

external learning at work sites, and intensive study courses. The goal was to strengthen

the motivation of young people to study and to prevent their exclusion from the education

system.4

Applying the earlier introduced bi-dimensional model to examine the MOC activity

illustrates that the distinction between high and low level of choice is not clear cut. To

certain extend MOC is based on voluntary participation since the young people have to

apply to it and there are very little direct sanctions for those who omit to participate. At the

same time young people are identified to be in need of targeted support and although they

are able to refuse certain kind of support measures (e.g. youth psychiatric counselling) the

freedom of choice has its limits: if it were not this activity it might be another institutionally

framed solution.

Whilst they accept to participate in MOC activities that have a clear target, they are also

invited to acknowledge the broader rehabilitating aims of the project and the participation

duties that are mainly directed to individual lifestyle-related, future-oriented questions.

3 This section is based on Sanna Aaltonen’s study (funded by the Academy of Finland 2008-2010 and Finnish Youth Research Network 2011-2013) that explores what are the imaginable prospects and actual choices of ninth graders who are considered to be at risk to be marginalized from the educational system or from their peer groups. The data that are produced in metropolitan area of Finland consist of 32 thematic biographical interviews with 15-17 –year old young women and men who have participated in multi professional services offering support for young people in order to complete comprehensive school and to prevent marginalization.4 During the school year 2008-2009 the MOC activities were produced jointly by the Educational Department and the Youth Department of the city of Helsinki in four comprehensive schools in which MOC classes were provided on separate premises. The staff in each school included one youth worker and one or two special teachers who were responsible for organizing the activities during school days.

11

Through participating to the project young people are made conscious of the societal

expectations concerning respectable citizenship. Further, they are expected to commit

themselves to the activities for a certain period of time or until they get the certificate. This

commitment is rewarded and fed by encouragement and joint incentives, and attendance

of young people is strictly monitored by the staff.

The overall aim of the activity is to rehabilitate young people, to foster autonomous

citizenship and civic skills that the young people are considered to lack. This task is

executed by involving young people to the activities on the daily basis by attending to

MOC-classes. Young people have a possibility to influence on the content of these

activities to certain extend: in MOC classes the curriculum follows the national one but is

still individually tailored.

Another option to influence and to participate in the decision making concerning one’s life

in MOC are the network meetings between the young person, his or her parent(s), staff

member(s) of the MOC and possibly other professionals such as a social worker who is

familiar with the young person. Thus, the obligation to participate, be heard as well as

guided is extended from the young people to the parents as well.5 The rationale for

including the parents in the activities derives from the outlook that it is not only the child

but the whole family that is in need of support. In these meetings individual plans

concerning education and life management are prepared for the young people and their

progress is regularly evaluated. The way young people are able to participate is to focus

on solving predetermined problems instead of setting problems which is seen as the most

active way to participate (see Borghi & van Berkel 2007). This was criticized by some of

the young people as an irrelevant obligation or non-participation from their point of view: “I

know it all already [reports on his behavior] so I don’t understand why I have to be there,

what is my role there. I just sit and listen to them”.

However, although the young people were not participating in the agenda setting and they

have very little to say in activity design (ibid.), they appeared to have allies. According to

the interviews with young people as well as the impression formed in the interviews with

the staff members, the professionals in the MOC had a genuine interest in the well being

of the young people as well as in the possibilities to further develop the activities. In this

5 This applies to general education as a whole: for example the statement on the web side of the City of Helsinki Education Department is that the department “considers it important that both students as well as their parents are able to participate in the development of schoolwork’ (Participate and Influence, 2012).

12

sense, staff members can be seen as certain kinds of representatives of young people and

their views. (See Macpherson 2008.) Since the staff works as a link between young people

and the institutional level, a sense of alliance between the two parties may be a key for the

acceptance of the support measures on behalf of the young people. The activity was not

called My Own Career for nothing: its aim indeed was to pilot young people to become

involved in mapping their educational and professional careers. Young people’s active

participation is called into play – it is required for example during the external learning

periods at work sites – and an important criterion for choosing the participants to the MOC

activities is whether the applicant is considered to handle this responsibility. Thus,

although the activities are institutionally framed by the legislation on compulsory education

they, at the same, require and foster active participation from those who have been

labeled as passive and disinterested towards school.

In the context of compulsory education the starting point of the participation to MOC is

compelling since young people are strongly guided to get the school leaving certificate, but

at the same time their participation rests on their voluntary commitment to this particular

activity. While degree of choice of the participants on the one hand is somewhat limited

and officially framed their commitment, on the other hand, is fed by a broad degree of

choice concerning the pace and the variety of studies (e.g. activity based learning, small

group teaching, on-the-job learning and different learning environments). Thus, the

balance between the obligatory and optional activities, intensive frames and individual

tailoring; and binding rules and allying staff eased the tensions young people may have felt

in the MOC.

Conclusion

The aim of implementing the participation rights of all youngsters in various arenas of

society is commonly agreed – at the level of policy discussions, at least. Instead of solely

monitoring and advancing the fulfillment of participation rights, it is essential for social

scientists to explore different embodiments of youth participation. The goals of this article

have been to illustrate the varieties of youth participation and dismantle simplistic

understanding of youth participation as one-sidedly empowering and democratisizing

13

opportunity. As showed in the earlier studies, youth participation opportunities are

unequally spread out and the implementation of the participation initiatives difficult in

practice.

Our model represents participation as multiform and complex concept, comprised of wide

range of actions and experiences. Youth participation may vary from the conventional to

unconventional, from officially governed to unofficially ordered, from socially accepted self-

interest to arousing, illegal disturbances that may lead to fundamental societal changes. If

we combine our model to Janet Newman’s distinctions in activating social policies (2007)

we may condense that the conventional type of youth participation equals with the idea of

active citizens, and informal and spontaneous youth participation instead with the activists.

The imposed youth participation equals with the activated citizens, and the forth type of

youth participation, consequences of disadvantage, with the ‘in-false-way-active’ or non-

active citizens.

The model can be used in youth studies that analyze the variety of positions given to

young people in society and in the services directed to them: how institutionally framed

these are, and is there individual volition or coercion emphasized. It also makes visible the

expectations laid on young people, and for their ways to participate and act; and explains

part of their possible experiences, options and constraints encountered in different

participation types. We can also contemplate what kind of civic skill are either promoted or

more or less unintentionally obtained through different types of participation. The

conventional youth participation in decision making obviously promotes skills needed in

formal decision making bodies while participating in alternative activities could be argued

to feed critical thinking-outside-the-box approach. Participating in services gives

participants an idea of negotiating with the officials and finding individual ways to cope with

the (expectations laid on them in) governing measures. Civic skills learned in participating

in detrimental activities, in turn, relate to getting by on a day-to-day basis.

Our analysis emphasizes the officially governed participation. In that context in general but

in relation to ‘required and imposed participation’ in particular, participation initiatives aim

at integrating young people to the existing social order. Young people are thus controlled

by their participation rights and obligations, guided to reach maturity, and govern and

responsibilitate themselves. Conventional and active participation of young people can be

seen as a requisite for full citizenship and adulthood – a way to earn freedom from the

14

educative and controlling measures, which is fundamental goal in the liberal societies

(Dean 1999).

According to Hart (1992, 5) participation refers “to the process of sharing decisions which

affect one’s life and the life of the community in which one lives”. It is reasonable to

contemplate whether the objective of officially governed participation is to have that

opinion taken into account in matters affecting a community or is it more focusing on

affecting an individual him/herself? We argue that there is a divided understanding of

youth participation: those policy initiatives that are directed to young people categorized as

‘passive’ or ‘at-risks’ consist of imposed duties to reflect upon their own conduct and future

prospects, which is hoped to feed their active citizenship. For young people identified as

capable participation initiatives open up possibilities to influence in policy making. At the

policy level, there is a challenge to ensure that the rights to participate in communal and

political level are not denied from or made inaccessible for those who are considered to be

in the need of supportive measures.

In this article we have demonstrated that emphasizing youth participation solely as

empowering possibility may mask the harshness of the participation measures offered to

‘passive’ young people. Right-based and positively associated ‘youth participation’ -

concept can be used to further almost any sorts of policies and practices, also those that

exclude the most disadvantaged – accidently or purposely – or legitimate illusory

partnership arrangements that hide unequal power structures.

Literature

Aaltonen, Sanna (2011) Omalla lomalla. Nuorten näkökulmia lintsaamiseen [Holiday of one’s own. Young people’s viewpoints of truanting]. Kasvatus 42(5), 480–492.

Barber, Terry (2009) Participation, citizenship, and well-being. Engaging with young people, making a difference. Young 17(1): 25–40.

Borghi, Vando & van Berkel, Rik (2007) Individualised service provision in an era of activation and new governance. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27 (9/10): 413–424.

15

Born, Asmund & Jensen, Per (2010) Dialogued-based activation – a new “dispositif’? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 30(5/6): 326–336.

Brooks, Rachel (2007) Young people’s extra-curricular activities: Critical social engagement - or 'something for the CV'?. Journal of Social Policy 36(3): 417–434.

Brooks, Rachel (2009) Young People and Political Participation: An Analysis of European Union Policies. Sociological Research Online 14(1). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/1/7.html (retrieved 28 Feb 2012).

Castel, Robert (2007) Sosiaalinen turvattomuus – Mitä on olla suojattu? Suomentanut Tiina Arppe. Helsinki: Kelan tutkimusosasto. [Originally: L'insécurité sociale: qu'est-ce qu'ètre protégé? 2003.

Dean, Mitchel (1999) Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. Sage, London.

Dickinson, Maggie (2008) The Making of Space, Race and Place: New York City's War on Graffiti, 1970 – the Present. Critique of Anthropology 28(1): 27–45.

Faulkner, Kathryn M. (2009) Presentation and Representation: Youth participation in ongoing public decision-making projects. Childhood 16(1): 89–104.

Flanagan, Constance (2009) Young people’s civic engagement and political development. In Andy Furlong (ed.) Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood. New Perspectives and Agendas. Routledge, Lontoo & New York, 293–300.

Flanagan, Constance & Levine, Peter (2010) Youth civic engagement during the transition to adulthood. In M. Waters, G. Berlin, & F. Furstenberg (eds.), Transition to Adulthood. The Future of Children 20(1): 159–180.

Foster, Karen Rebecca and Spencer, Dale (2011) At risk of what? Possibilities over probabilities in the study of young lives. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(1), 125-143.

Hall, Tom & Coffey, Amanda (2007) Learning selves and citizenship: Gender and youth transitions. Journal of Social Policy 36(2): 1–18.

Hall, Tom – Williamson, Howard & Coffey, Amanda (1998) Conceptualizing citizenship: young people and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Education Policy 13(3): 301–315.

Harris, Anita – Wyn, Johanna – Younes, Salem (2010) Beyond apathetic or activist youth: “Ordinary’ young people and contemporary forms of participation. Young 18(1): 9–32.

Hart, Roger (1992) Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essays nr 4. UNICEF, Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf (retrieved 17 Jan 2012).

Hoikkala, Tommi & Suurpää, Leena (2005) Finnish youth cultural research and its relevance to youth policy. Young 13(3): 285–312.

Jones, Gill – O’Sullivan, Ann – Rouse, Julia (2004) “Because It’s Worth It?” Education Beliefs Among Young People and Their Parents in the United Kingdom. Youth & Society 36(2): 203-226.

16

Juris, Jeffrey Scott & Geoffrey Henri Pleyers (2009) Alter-activism: emerging cultures of participation among young global justice activists. Journal of Youth Studies 12(1), 57-75.

Kouvonen, Petra (2010) Re-negotiating personal integrity in Finnish Child Welfare. International Journal of Children's Rights 18(1): 111–125.

Laine, Sofia (2012) Young Actors in Transnational Agoras. Multi-Sited Ethnography of Cosmopolitan Micropolitical Orientations. Nuorisotutkimusverkosto/Nuorisotutkimusseura, julkaisuja 121. Helsinki .

MacDonald, Robert – Mason, Paul – Shildrick, Tracy – Webster, Colin – Johnston, Les – Ridley, Louise (2001) Snakes & Ladders: In Defence of Studies of Youth Transition. Sociological Research Online 5(4). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/4/macdonald.html (retrieved 28 Feb 2012).

MacPherson, Suzi (2008) Reaching the top of the ladder? Locating the voices of excluded young people within the participation debate. Policy & Politics 36(3), 361–379.

Milbourne, Linda (2009) Valuing Difference or Securing Compliance? Working to Involve Young People in Community Settings. Children & Society 23(5): 327–363.

Miller, Peter & Rose, Nikolas (2008) Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Moran-Ellis, Jo (2010) Reflections on the Sociology of Childhood in the UK. Current Sociology 58 (2): 186–205.

Muncie, John (2006) Governing young people: Coherence and contradiction in contemporary youth justice. Critical Social Policy 26(4): 770–793.

Määttä, Mirja & Kalliomaa-Puha, Laura (2006) Sopivaksi kasvattava yhteiskunta. [Educating by Contracting –society] In Kati Rantala & Pekka Sulkunen (eds.) Projektiyhteiskunnan kääntöpuolia [The Project Society Inside Out]. Gaudeamus, Helsinki. 179–193.

Nairn, Karen & Sligi, Judith & Freeman, Claire (2006) Polarizing Participation in Local Government: Which Young People Are Included and Excluded? Children, Youth and Environments 16(2) 248–271.

Newman, Janet (2007) The “double dynamics’ of activation: Institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27 (9/10) 364–375.

Participate and influence (Dated 21.02.2012). City of Helsinki Education Department. http://www.hel.fi/hki/opev/en/Participation (retrieved 21st March 2012)

Pohl, Axel & Walther, Andreas (2007) Activating the disadvantaged. Variations in addressing youth transitions across Europe. International Journal of Lifelong Education 26(5): 533–553.

Rose, Nikolas (1999a) Powers of Freedom. Refraiming Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.

17

Rose, Nikolas (1999b) Governing the soul. The shaping of the private self. Second edition. Free Association Books, London. First edition published in 1989.

Satka, Mirja & Harrikari, Timo (2008) The Present Finnish Formation of Child Welfare and History. British Journal of Social Work 38(4): 645–661.

Smith, Mark K. (2011) 'Young people and the 2011 'riots' in England – experiences, explanations and implications for youth work'. The encycopedia of informal education. [http://www.infed.org/archives/jeffs_and_smith/young_people_youth_work_and_the_2011_riots_in_england.html] retrieved 28th May 2012.

Smyth, J. & Hattam, R. with Cannon, J., Edwards, J., Wilson, N., Wurst, S. 2004 ‘Dropping Out’, Drifting Off, Being Excluded. Becoming Somebody Without School. New York: Peter Lang.

Sulkunen, Pekka (2009) The Saturated Society – Governing Risk and Lifestyles in Consumer Culture. Sage, London.

Sulkunen, Pekka (2011) Autonomy against Intimacy: On the Problem of Governing Lifestyle-Related Risks. Telos, Fall 2011: 99–112.

Thomson, Pat & Roger Holdsworth (2003) Theorizing change in the educational ‘field’: re-readings of ‘student participation’ projects. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 371-391.

Thomson, Rachel – Holland, Janet – McGrellis, Sheena – Bell, Robert – Henderson, Sheila – Sharpe, Sue (2004) Inventing adulthood: A biographical perspective on youth citizenship. Sociological Review 52(2): 218–293.

Tisdall, E. Kay M. & Davis, John (2004) Making a difference? Bringing Children's and Young People's Views into Policy-Making. Children and Society 18(2): 131-142.

Visconti, Luca M. – Sherry, John F. Jr. – Borghini, Stefania – Anderson, Laurel (2010) Street Art, Sweet Art? Reclaiming the ‘Public’ in Public Place. Journal of Consumer Research 37(Oct): 511–529.

Vromen, Ariadne & Collin, Philippa (2010) Everyday youth participation? Contrasting views from Australian policymakers and young people. Young 18(1): 97–112.

Wall, John (2012) Can democracy represent children? Toward a politics of difference. Childhood 19(1): 86–100.

Walther, Andreas (2005) Risks and Responsibilities? The Individualisation of Youth Transitions and the Ambivalences between Participation and Activation in Europe. Socia Work & Society 3 (1): 116 – 127.

Whitty, Geoff & Wisby, Emma (2007) Whose voice? An exploration of the current policy interest in pupil involvement in school decision-making. International Studies in Sociology of Education 17(3), 303–319.

Wyn, Johanna (2009) Youth Health and Welfare. The Cultural Politics of Education and Wellbeing. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

18

Wyness, Michael (2009) Children representing children: Participation and the problem of diversity in UK youth councils. Childhood 16(4), 535–552.

Internet pages

Finnish National Board of Education. http://www.oph.fi/english/education/basic_education

19